1. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant’s revocation of the Plaintiff’s child-care center qualification against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 22, 2014 to May 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was registered as the president of C Child Care Center located in B (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).

B. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s qualification as the head of a child-care center pursuant to Articles 22-2 and 48 of the Infant Care Act on the ground that D practically performed the duties of the head of the child-care center of this case and the Plaintiff lent D the child-care center’s

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1 to 3, each entry of Gap’s No. 1 to 4 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff actually worked in the child-care center of this case and plays a role as the head of the child-care center.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. According to the reasoning of the aforementioned disposition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that the plaintiff was in charge of violating the Infant Care Act due to the lending of the principal qualification certificate of the Child Care Center against the plaintiff on December 22, 2014 to May 24, 2015. D during the above period manages the teachers of the Child Care Center in this case; provided consultation with some parents; provided that the public prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor's Office of Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor's Office has conducted a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that the plaintiff was in charge of the principal's duties on December 30, 2016.

In light of the above facts, as long as the Plaintiff actually worked in the child care center of this case and performed considerable part of its duties, the Plaintiff’s qualification certificate for the child care center to D on behalf of the principal.